| 11:01 am on Jan 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I really don't like the personalised results. It's all very "jump aboard phase 2 of our social network / personal data capture exercise or lose out".
|First they came for the affiliate market and I did not speak out because I was not a affiliate market. |
Then they came for the analytics market and I did not speak out because I was not in the analytics market.
Then they came for the local market and I did not speak out because I was not in the local market.
Then they came for my personal network and there was no one left to speak out for me.
OK, that may be a tad melodramatic! ;) But Google is only a few steps away from owning our asses.
| 11:13 am on Jan 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
My ass got owned on October 13th 2011
| 12:07 pm on Jan 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
google is just stuffing the serps with things no one want to use, if I want something with google+ which i will never do, then i go there, it also counts for pictures, videos, twitter.... Im on google web search to look for other websites its that easy and the serps will look a lot cleaner.
| 3:54 pm on Jan 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
it wasnt so long ago that google were putting tweets in a little scrolling box at the top of the serps. so its a bit rich twitter moaning about it. they didnt seem to mind too much when it was twitter benefiting from better placements.
although its nice to see a big company speak out about it.
| 5:28 pm on Jan 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|although its nice to see a big company speak out about it. |
Twitter declined to renew [telegraph.co.uk] their feed deal with Google, not the other way around. Twitter screwed themselves.
| 8:33 pm on Jan 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Every big enough company that gets media attention should blast Google for this. This is a huge mistake, and it's annoying/ugly. No one is liking this new SERP. No one. There's no way they can keep the pages like this...they've reverted before when they realized their stupidity and hopefully they will again.
| 8:41 pm on Jan 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|This is a huge mistake, and it's annoying/ugly. No one is liking this new SERP. No one. |
Google users have to be logged in to see the SERPs. Otherwise it does not exist. It has been reported that only 10% of site visitors to a typical site are logged in to Google, and Matt Cutts himself has said, in relation to how many visitors are logged in (in the context of the keyword not provided change [searchengineland.com] that the number of logged in visitors would be in the single digits.
Here are the facts as we know them:
1. These SERPs are NOT being shown to 100% of Google users.
2. The new SERPs are only being shown to about/more or less 10% of Google users.
3. Twitter walked away from Google, not the other way around.
4. The new SERPs are not forced on everybody, only to people who buy into Google's services by signing in.
| 11:36 pm on Jan 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I find this twitter vs google banter interesting since my personal views actually side with Twitter. Google is building their empire on your personal information now, not just your content, and that's just wrong. It paves the way to push the creepy line further.
| 3:43 am on Jan 12, 2012 (gmt 0)|
All this as it may...
Has anyone noticed how hard it is to use google for any kind a serious research anymore.
It's all fluff, signed in or out. Just fluff (and wikipedia - oh, I guess that is more fluff still...)
| 5:42 am on Jan 12, 2012 (gmt 0)|
If I am logged in to my Google account, Google shows me personalized data. Whats wrong in it?
| 6:31 am on Jan 12, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I mentioned it before but here again, the only way i use google on my computer is via the mobile link [google.com...]
thats sort of like the old days without the clutter..
| 3:12 pm on Jan 12, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I notice the rel=author tag only works with a Google+ profile when it comes to highlighted listings in their SERPs. It's another way they're trying to shunt people into using their social network. It's pretty aggressive when you consider most people's social/author profiles are elsewhere on the web.
| 5:39 pm on Jan 12, 2012 (gmt 0)|
If "Google" were not synonymous with "internet search" there would not be an issue. Of course, it is good marketing on their part.
Give me Bing any day.
| 2:30 am on Jan 13, 2012 (gmt 0)|
as many webmasters, i welcome any criticism regarding google serps placement for their own services.
but seriously, would anyone of you miss twitter in prominent search results? personally i can't remember that i ever clicked on one of those twitter blurbs. what informational content do some 140 char private messages provide to you? it's a complete waste. with even g+ discussion threads being the lesser evil if you're absolutely in need for social results.
| 2:56 am on Jan 13, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I liked Google once .. way back in the day .. when it was a real search engine.
It was fresh and clean and smooth and .. well .. it was a "search" engine.
I don't want to know about aunt sally's sacks-a-saggin' or wiley willy's wanna-be's .. I want to search ..
I put on the UAControl (for Firefox) and so far, I still have the Google that I want to see.